Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. vs State And Ors. on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPAOW No. 58/2017
MP No. 01/2017
Caveat No. 2138/2017
Date of Order: 17.07.2017
________________________________________________________________
Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jawahar Lal, Advocate and
Mr. Pranav Kohli, Advocate
For Caveator(s) : Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG with
Mr. Sudesh Kumar Magotra, GA
In this Intra Court Appeal, the appellant has
assailed the validity of order dated 29.04.2017 passed in
a bunch of writ petitions, by which the petition filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed.
When the matter was taken up today, learned
counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this
Court to the motion of adjournment and pointed out
that the same was circulated with the consent of the
counsel for the State Government, however, in absence
of the counsel for the appellant, the writ petition has
been dismissed. It is submitted that the appellant has
been deprived of the opportunity of addressing the
Court. In other words, impugned order has been passed
by the learned Writ Court without affording opportunity
of hearing to the appellant.
On the other hand, Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG
submitted that counsel appearing for the respondents
Case: LPAOW No. 58/2017 Page 1 of 2
had not signed the motion for adjournment. It is further submitted that the respondents in the writ petition before the Single Judge were represented by Mr. Sudesh Kumar Magotra, Government Advocate, and the motion for adjournment was signed by Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned Government Advocate.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the order impugned has been passed in absence of the counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant has raised arguable question of facts in the writ petition, therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside order dated 29.04.2017 qua the petitioner insofar as it pertains to OWP No. 1204/2013 and the writ petition is remanded to learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today.
We request the learned Single Judge to take up the application moved by the respondents for vacation of ad interim order on the next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed on 01.08.2017. Accordingly, LPA is disposed of.
Caveat shall stand discharged.
(Sanjeev Kumar) (Alok Aradhe)
Judge Judge
Jammu,
17.07.2017
Karam Chand
Case: LPAOW No. 58/2017 Page 2 of 2